• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

Brexit matters

Master Cutler

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2021
Messages
135
Location
Mansfield
Which is absolutely fine for people and companies who already did business outside the EU. However there are a vast array of SMEs that have set up over the years that have only ever dealt with sales inside the common market.
Not only SMEs but even the bigger global companies who should know better have been caught out.
I know of instances where it's quicker and cheaper to now supply products into the UK from non EU global company locations.

It is wrong to think that there is "one" set of paperwork to export goods to the EU .

We are third country now and if any export is send to a country in the SM from the UK , UK's exporter must fill / get paperwork relevant to THAT country .
Other words if you export to Germany , France ore Italy you need 3 sets of papers relevant to each country as each have different requirements .

Show me any exporter that was " ready" for that .
But surely, we knew all of this post 2016, so should have been more prepared.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,779
Location
Scotland
All exporters should also be fully familiar with the international Incoterms. .
Before January 2021, companies doing business within the EU weren't exporting. that's the whole point of a single market!
But surely, we knew all of this post 2016, so should have been more prepared.
How could businesses prepare when it wasn't even clear until pretty late in the game if we would be in or out of the Single Market and/or Customs Union?
 

Master Cutler

Member
Joined
23 Jan 2021
Messages
135
Location
Mansfield
In most cases new paperwork information was available from the many global shipping companies, but many exporters were unclear on the details, which is where lots of problems originated.
However, I can't comment on the situation surrounding UK fishing and shellfish exporting complications as this is too entwined in political inertia.
 

raetiamann

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2013
Messages
217
Which is absolutely fine for people and companies who already did business outside the EU. However there are a vast array of SMEs that have set up over the years that have only ever dealt with sales inside the common market

I agree, however I've met many companies trading outside of the EU, that don't have a clue about Incoterms, relying on the overseas partner to set the terms of trade. Also Incoterms is updated every ten years, but only a small percentage of companies seem aware of that and respond quickly. The terms of the trade are in reality a negotiating tool and are important where the transfer of risk moves from seller to buyer.
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
3,534
Location
Elginshire
Benefits are not just for unemployment - stories of child benefits being paid for children still resident in their home (EU) country. Would never have happened if there had been a 'European' style pseudo insurance scheme in place.
These jobs you are talking about will either have to be exported to the EU (evidence that some warehouse jobs are moving already), mechanised, activity eliminated, performed by controlled immigrants or paid rates that those in the UK are happy to do the jobs for. The main 'crisis' is that some things are likely going to cost more.
Those immigrants who are working in the UK are paying tax and national insurance just the same as everyone else. Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits when they're contributing to our economy in exactly the same way?

I also take issue with the idea that it's only immigrants that work in warehouses*. Some Brits may be put off taking up such jobs because of the lower wages, but equally there will be some who do those jobs because there is nothing else available to them in a particular area. Some companies may have set up their facilities in those areas because of an already depressed job market and/or incentives to locate there. Moving them abroad doesn't just deprive an area of those jobs but affects the wider local economy as there are fewer people earning and spending. As for paying rates that those in the UK are happy to do the jobs for, the government could solve this issue at a stroke by setting the minimum wage at a high enough level for people to actually live on.

To address your final point regarding some things costing more: the 'crisis', as you put it, will be very real for those who are already struggling financially. It's all well and good if you have an income which is sufficient for you to absorb those additional costs, but I suppose many of the proponents of Brexit would never give a second thought towards those who are on the breadline.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
1,925
It might be due to the EU's behaviour, or it might be due to the complexity of trade between the EU and a third country.

Speaking of which, how many doses of vaccine have been exported from the UK to the EU so far?
None, aside from supplying key ingredients for millions of the EU's vaccines.

We also exported the thick end of a million to Australia to make up for those the EU blocked, but kept quiet about it, as has now been revealed by the Australian press.

 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
2,149
Those immigrants who are working in the UK are paying tax and national insurance just the same as everyone else. Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same benefits when they're contributing to our economy in exactly the same way?
In the context of Free Movement , if one country has more generous benefit systems than another, they will inevitably attract immigrants, particularly from those countries less economically developed. It is usual for European benefit systems to have qualifying periods before immigrants can access them fully. This country could have adopted the European pseudo insurance model to level up the systems, but didn't (no doubt for all sorts of reasons).
I also take issue with the idea that it's only immigrants that work in warehouses*. Some Brits may be put off taking up such jobs because of the lower wages, but equally there will be some who do those jobs because there is nothing else available to them in a particular area. Some companies may have set up their facilities in those areas because of an already depressed job market and/or incentives to locate there. Moving them abroad doesn't just deprive an area of those jobs but affects the wider local economy as there are fewer people earning and spending. As for paying rates that those in the UK are happy to do the jobs for, the government could solve this issue at a stroke by setting the minimum wage at a high enough level for people to actually live on.
Nowhere have I said that only immigrants work in warehouses. My reference to evidence that some warehouse jobs are moving to Europe was just an illustration of the job market reducing which co-incides with the reduction of Free Movement labour availability. Yes there will be some volatility, and structural adjustment to be made, and strategies will be required to deal with that. This is nothing new to this country.
As far as the minimum wage is concerned, I am under no illusion that government could solve this issue 'at a stroke'. This is a very complex subject with many variables to contend with. However, reduced availability of labour should cause rates to rise (which will cause prices to rise), unless other strategies are adopted (example - self service tills in supermarkets)
To address your final point regarding some things costing more: the 'crisis', as you put it, will be very real for those who are already struggling financially. It's all well and good if you have an income which is sufficient for you to absorb those additional costs, but I suppose many of the proponents of Brexit would never give a second thought towards those who are on the breadline.
I do not think being in or out of the EU affects whether some people are on the breadline or not. These will always exist, only maybe the quantity changing, but that is really a consequence of our internal social and economic policies. I would expect the same proportion on either side of the argument to be giving second thought to them.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,779
Location
Scotland
None, aside from supplying key ingredients for millions of the EU's vaccines.
Many of which finished vaccines were then imported to the UK, so hardly a shining example of altuism.
We also exported the thick end of a million to Australia to make up for those the EU blocked, but kept quiet about it, as has now been revealed by the Australian press.
One wonders why the need to "keep quiet about it"? Could it be because we didn't want to cause friction with the EU, or perhaps because the government had created such a toxic nationalistic atmosphere where vaccines were concerned that they feared the backlash if it was public knowledge that our vaccines were being exported?
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,605
None, aside from supplying key ingredients for millions of the EU's vaccines.

We also exported the thick end of a million to Australia to make up for those the EU blocked, but kept quiet about it, as has now been revealed by the Australian press.


Conveniently ignoring that the first 300 000 doses arrived on February 28th, where as Italy only recieved the request to authorise the export of 250 700 on 24th Feb, and it only made the news on 4th March. So quite clearly the export was being manufactured and in the pipeline well before any 'EU' intervention and in no way 'making up for' the vaccines blocked.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56279202

So whilst neighbours and supposed alies were dealing with a 3rd wave of the virus mainly driven by a variant that appears to have evolved on British shores, the UK sticks to its contractual blockade of supplies. Whilst simultaneously and underhandely ships supplies to the other side of the globe, where they were having *checks notes* a 7 day average of 6 cases a day. Talk about wasting valuable resources.

This episode is an entire lesson in how to loose friends and alienate people. There would be no surprise from me if following this the EU starts treating the UK not as an allie but as a potentially hostile island off it's border, in a similar vein to how the US treats Cuba.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,010
Location
nowhere
Conveniently ignoring that the first 300 000 doses arrived on February 28th, where as Italy only recieved the request to authorise the export of 250 700 on 24th Feb, and it only made the news on 4th March. So quite clearly the export was being manufactured and in the pipeline well before any 'EU' intervention and in no way 'making up for' the vaccines blocked.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56279202

So whilst neighbours and supposed alies were dealing with a 3rd wave of the virus mainly driven by a variant that appears to have evolved on British shores, the UK sticks to its contractual blockade of supplies. Whilst simultaneously and underhandely ships supplies to the other side of the globe, where they were having *checks notes* a 7 day average of 6 cases a day. Talk about wasting valuable resources.

This episode is an entire lesson in how to loose friends and alienate people. There would be no surprise from me if following this the EU starts treating the UK not as an allie but as a potentially hostile island off it's border, in a similar vein to how the US treats Cuba.

AZ (who make the deliveries, not the UKGov, nor EU commission though individual EU member states now have powers to veto deliveries) don't care one jot about case rates, only contracts. If their contract with Australia called for x thousand doses by a certain date then they'll still have likely had to supply as many as reasonably practical by said date. To divert vaccines from one country to another by case rates (as a proxy for urgent need) makes things messy in a world ruled by contracts, though would be the obvious way to do things in a world where everyone got on just great.

I don't think it's fair to say that the export was being manufactured well before any intervention - it was quite clear that the EU were going to start blocking AZ exports long before they actually blocked the first one! It would seem that either the UK plants managed to get a bumper yield that week (and therefore had the capacity to send some extra doses elsewhere - assuming the UK's exclusivity deal was done as "first 200,000 doses/week for 50 weeks") or it was just UKGov waiving their supposed first 100mn doses exclusivity clause and taking a small hit in our own supply for the sake of being the "bigger man" and acting in a way that is compatible with international law (!) whilst the EU blocked exports. Obviously all speculative as we've not got sight of either UK or australia contracts, but I don't think it's a case of the UK being as antagonistic as you seem to infer

Agreed that the whole episode is a lesson in how to loose friends and alienate people, but let's not pretend the EU have been blameless
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,605
AZ (who make the deliveries, not the UKGov, nor EU commission though individual EU member states now have powers to veto deliveries) don't care one jot about case rates, only contracts. If their contract with Australia called for x thousand doses by a certain date then they'll still have likely had to supply as many as reasonably practical by said date. To divert vaccines from one country to another by case rates (as a proxy for urgent need) makes things messy in a world ruled by contracts, though would be the obvious way to do things in a world where everyone got on just great.

I don't think it's fair to say that the export was being manufactured well before any intervention - it was quite clear that the EU were going to start blocking AZ exports long before they actually blocked the first one! It would seem that either the UK plants managed to get a bumper yield that week (and therefore had the capacity to send some extra doses elsewhere - assuming the UK's exclusivity deal was done as "first 200,000 doses/week for 50 weeks") or it was just UKGov waiving their supposed first 100mn doses exclusivity clause and taking a small hit in our own supply for the sake of being the "bigger man" and acting in a way that is compatible with international law (!) whilst the EU blocked exports. Obviously all speculative as we've not got sight of either UK or australia contracts, but I don't think it's a case of the UK being as antagonistic as you seem to infer

Agreed that the whole episode is a lesson in how to loose friends and alienate people, but let's not pretend the EU have been blameless
The point is that for whatever reason (bumper yield / waiving the exclusivity clause) at exactly the moment the EU was having supply problems and feeling the need to restrict exports.

acting in a way that is compatible with international law (!)
Article XI 2. (a) specifically allows for the implementation of Quantative Restrictions and export prohibitions when:
temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products essential to the exporting contracting party;
So anything the EU has done is entirely within so called 'international law'.

Meanwhile all this hating on the EU, whilst the the US sits on 30 million doses with an explicit export ban, that it has not even approved use of. I am not trying to claim the EU is blameless, but it does appear that in trying to play by the rules they have been screwed over by those who think that rules only apply to others.
 

Annetts key

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
544
Location
West is best
Let’s be absolutely clear here, many governments and politicians have handled the COVID19 Corona virus pandemic badly. And the vaccination programme is going just as badly in many countries due to various reasons.

So there is plenty of blame to go around. And that definitely includes the U.K. governments.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,010
Location
nowhere
The point is that for whatever reason (bumper yield / waiving the exclusivity clause) at exactly the moment the EU was having supply problems and feeling the need to restrict exports.

Look at it from AZ's point of view though. When many of the plants you'd intended to supply the world are suddenly prevented from exporting, if you manage to free up any extra capacity you aren't then going to use it to supplement the supply to the contracts who've 'secured' more for themselves and prevented you from exporting it, you're going to use it to try and fulfil the contracts that were suddenly left with zero doses

So anything the EU has done is entirely within so called 'international law'.

Meanwhile all this hating on the EU, whilst the the US sits on 30 million doses with an explicit export ban, that it has not even approved use of. I am not trying to claim the EU is blameless, but it does appear that in trying to play by the rules they have been screwed over by those who think that rules only apply to others.

International law was probably not the right phrasing for me to use. Whilst the EU may be within it's rights to start putting export bans in place (and perhaps less so in claims around taking intellectual property), it's not a very good look, especially when you've sold yourself on the basis of being a place where manufacturers can set up and supply the world from. The US, whilst far from blameless, at least was upfront around it's strategy which is why vaccine production has been setup elsewhere, the sudden change in heart from the EU by comparison is a bad look. They tried to play by the rules, but then decided that actually maybe the rules could be a little bit flexible, having seen others decide not to play by the rules, to use your analogy. Also FWIW, I was under the impression that many of those doses have been exported to Canada & Mexico, and I'm sure that if the US decides not to approve AZ the remainder will be exported in short fashion as well/
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,779
Location
Scotland
Also FWIW, I was under the impression that many of those doses have been exported to Canada & Mexico...
Very recently, yes. But nowhere near the majority. They have sent about 2.5 million doses to Mexico and 'loaned' 1.5 million doses to Canada.
 

VauxhallandI

Established Member
Joined
26 Dec 2012
Messages
2,096
Location
Cheshunt
So it would seem the attempt by Brexit fanatics to try and squeeze one good thing about the exercise in blaming the nasty EU for making things up about blood clots has fallen on its behind.

To the point where:

However, government advice is that everyone who has already received a first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine should be offered the second dose, irrespective of age.

Only someone who experienced clotting after the first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine - or who has a history of blood disorders which puts them at greater risk of clotting - should not have the second dose as planned. If you are in doubt about your own circumstances, you should talk to your GP.





And before the belittling of the size of it is your justification for ignoring it, this scenario applies to my Mother who had clots on her lungs after taking it and could have dropped dead if it hadn't been for her medical knowledge and vigilance.

So don't come round our way waving your wee flags.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
16,000
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Pound is also back above the dollar level it was at when the referendum was held and is climbing steadily against the euro.
The pound bought you euro 1.50 when it launched in 1999, very similar to the US dollar.
There is no planet where the pound has done remotely as well as the euro (or dollar) in the last two decades.
I would regard parity, which it nearly is, as a disaster, not something to crow about.

What I can't stand about the extreme Brexiters is the way they seem to want to destroy the EU and all its works, not just learn to coexist peacefully with the agreements made, and work to improve them.
The Express has multiple pieces daily where every nuance in Brussels and EU capitals is turned into a UK-good/EU bad story.

I'm also still waiting for a better trade deal with any of the countries outside the EU, especially those where there was an EU28 deal in place.
The "teething problems" are nothing of the sort, they are a permanent and intended result of the thin trade deal Boris did last year.
So are the problems with NI trade.
Ending free movement is also why some UK residents in the EU27 now face deportation (as do some going the other way).
It has ended one of the best benefits of EU membership, the right to live and work anywhere in Europe.

I agree we are not through the period of adjustment yet, as we have not implemented import controls and other arrangements have been postponed for several months.
It will be Jan 2022 or later before the full impact of Brexit will be felt.
I also don't get the impression that we are doing much to improve the situation either, for fear of upsetting the Brexit purists.
And Indyref2 awaits...
 
Last edited:

gysev

Member
Joined
23 Dec 2016
Messages
109
Location
Belgium
Last week, the impact of Brexit on the Belgian economy for the first 3 months were released in the press.
Import from the UK was 40% less - for food it was 75%!
On the other hand, Belgian exports to the UK were 'only' 6 to 28% down, depending on the products.
 

REVUpminster

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2021
Messages
326
Location
Paignton
The pound bought you euro 1.50 when it launched in 1999, very similar to the US dollar.
There is no planet where the pound has done remotely as well as the euro (or dollar) in the last two decades.
I would regard parity, which it nearly is, as a disaster, not something to crow about.

What I can't stand about the extreme Brexiters is the way they seem to want to destroy the EU and all its works, not just learn to coexist peacefully with the agreements made, and work to improve them.
The Express has multiple pieces daily where every nuance in Brussels is turned into a UK-good/EU bad story.
I'm also still waiting for a better trade deal with any of the countries outside the EU, especially those where there was an EU28 deal in place.
The "teething problems" are nothing of the sort, they are a permanent and intended result of the thin trade deal Boris did last year.
So are the problems with NI trade.
Ending free movement is also why some UK residents in the EU27 now face deportation (as do some going the other way).
It has ended one of the best benefits of EU membership, the right to live and work anywhere in Europe.

I agree we are not through the period of adjustment yet, as we have not implemented import controls and other arrangements have been postponed for several months.
It will be Jan 2022 or later before the full impact of Brexit will be felt.
I also don't get the impression that we are doing much to improve the situation either, for fear of upsetting the Brexit purists.
And Indyref2 awaits...
Britain is only receiving the treatment the EU meets out to third countries. Or does it? Are we being treated as other third countries or being subjected to special treatment? Is it what a protectionist block does?. When we were in the EU other members were always trying to undermine the city. Ireland and Belgium give cheap corporation tax rates to lure business to their countries.
 

Annetts key

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
544
Location
West is best
Britain is only receiving the treatment the EU meets out to third countries. Or does it? Are we being treated as other third countries or being subjected to special treatment? Is it what a protectionist block does?. When we were in the EU other members were always trying to undermine the city. Ireland and Belgium give cheap corporation tax rates to lure business to their countries.
I thought brexiteers were against common tax rules across the E.U.
Brexiteers want each country to have it’s own tax rules, hence there are bound to be situations where some countries have lower taxes, and then get called tax havens. Like Jersey...
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
1,925
The pound bought you euro 1.50 when it launched in 1999, very similar to the US dollar.
There is no planet where the pound has done remotely as well as the euro (or dollar) in the last two decades.
I would regard parity, which it nearly is, as a disaster, not something to crow about.

What I can't stand about the extreme Brexiters is the way they seem to want to destroy the EU and all its works, not just learn to coexist peacefully with the agreements made, and work to improve them.
The Express has multiple pieces daily where every nuance in Brussels is turned into a UK-good/EU bad story.
I'm also still waiting for a better trade deal with any of the countries outside the EU, especially those where there was an EU28 deal in place.
The "teething problems" are nothing of the sort, they are a permanent and intended result of the thin trade deal Boris did last year.
So are the problems with NI trade.
Ending free movement is also why some UK residents in the EU27 now face deportation (as do some going the other way).
It has ended one of the best benefits of EU membership, the right to live and work anywhere in Europe.

I agree we are not through the period of adjustment yet, as we have not implemented import controls and other arrangements have been postponed for several months.
It will be Jan 2022 or later before the full impact of Brexit will be felt.
I also don't get the impression that we are doing much to improve the situation either, for fear of upsetting the Brexit purists.
And Indyref2 awaits...
The big fall against the Euro came in 2008, not 2016 caused by the banking crises. Other than a blip in the year or so before the referendum the rate has been remarkably similar since 2008
 

Attachments

  • 20210413_091426.jpg
    20210413_091426.jpg
    83.8 KB · Views: 20

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,779
Location
Scotland
The big fall against the Euro came in 2008, not 2016 caused by the banking crises. Other than a blip in the year or so before the referendum the rate has been remarkably similar since 2008
That's not what I'm seeing in that chart. I agree that there was a big fall in 2008 but from there I see pretty consistent appreciation trend up until 2016 at which point it dropped again with no recovery at all.
 
Last edited:

REVUpminster

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2021
Messages
326
Location
Paignton
I thought brexiteers were against common tax rules across the E.U.
Brexiteers want each country to have it’s own tax rules, hence there are bound to be situations where some countries have lower taxes, and then get called tax havens. Like Jersey...
Your point? Jersey like the Isle of Man is not in the UK or EU.
 

Annetts key

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2021
Messages
544
Location
West is best
Your point? Jersey like the Isle of Man is not in the UK or EU.
I never said that Jersey was in the U.K. or in the E.U.

My point is obvious, if every country sets it’s own rules and has it’s own systems (so called sovereignty), then there will always be a country somewhere that will undercut other countries with lower tax rates or other advantageous rules.

Just imagine if we applied the same sovereignty to sport. In that each country could make up it’s own rules to govern the various sports played in that country. It would make international sporting events a nightmare.

Part of the point of the E.U. is to have common standards so that there is a level playing field within the E.U. member countries. And to have these common standards at a reasonable level where no member state is disadvantaged (as long as it does not compromise the safety of the people).
 

GusB

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
3,534
Location
Elginshire
Britain is only receiving the treatment the EU meets out to third countries. Or does it? Are we being treated as other third countries or being subjected to special treatment? Is it what a protectionist block does?. When we were in the EU other members were always trying to undermine the city. Ireland and Belgium give cheap corporation tax rates to lure business to their countries.

The fact that Ireland and Belgium set cheaper corporation tax rates is surely indicative of their ability to be able to go their own way on certain matters; i.e. Sovereignty - the very thing that you think we were deprived of when we were part of the EU :)
 

REVUpminster

Member
Joined
3 Jan 2021
Messages
326
Location
Paignton
I never said that Jersey was in the U.K. or in the E.U.

My point is obvious, if every country sets it’s own rules and has it’s own systems (so called sovereignty), then there will always be a country somewhere that will undercut other countries with lower tax rates or other advantageous rules.

Just imagine if we applied the same sovereignty to sport. In that each country could make up it’s own rules to govern the various sports played in that country. It would make international sporting events a nightmare.

Part of the point of the E.U. is to have common standards so that there is a level playing field within the E.U. member countries. And to have these common standards at a reasonable level where no member state is disadvantaged (as long as it does not compromise the safety of the people).
So why isn't there a level playing field regarding Corporation tax or any other taxes. Ireland and Belgium are disadvantaging their fellow members.

Germany taking cheap gas from Russia directly by the pipeline under construction is to gain an advantage.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,605
So why isn't there a level playing field regarding Corporation tax or any other taxes. Ireland and Belgium are disadvantaging their fellow members.
Because the UK stongly argued against closer integration. Now the UK has left, the EU may well push on with at least a minimum threshold for things like corporation tax etc, like it has to some extent with VAT. Given the US is pushing for similar, there might soon be two of the world's biggest trading entity heading down the same path.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
24,779
Location
Scotland
So why isn't there a level playing field regarding Corporation tax or any other taxes. Ireland and Belgium are disadvantaging their fellow members
Because, contrary to supposition, the EU isn't a supranational government and matters such as corporate tax rates are completely in the purview of member states.

If a state can balance their budget such that they have a lower corporate tax rate and still meet their obligations then good on them.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
1,847
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Jersey like the Isle of Man is not in the UK or EU.
Brexit appears to have caused yet another problem, a confrontation over the Channel Islands/îles Normandes. The separate Bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey were originally part of the Duchy of Normandy and have essentially (apart from brief occupations by France and Germany at different periods) been under English (and later British) control ever since 1066, but never part of England or subsequently the UK, and were thus never part of the EU.

However, their current position is problematic and anomalous, and given their geographic situation, would they not be better off as French départements?
 
Last edited:

davetheguard

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
1,353
would they not be better off as French départements?

In lots of ways possibly yes. But they've never been in the EU, presumably because they'd have to give up their off-shore tax avoidance status, and allow freedom of movement - you and I have never been allowed to live there (unless you're some sort of multi-millionaire oligarch who can buy your way in) despite many thinking of it as part of Britain.
 

Top